The Badger Herald: News: System looks to reassign funds

News

System looks to reassign funds

Officials vote to use retention money toward student aid

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Signe Brewster:

Rebuilding the ASM Diversity Committee (November 11, 2009)
Former UW, NFL football player arrested at Wando's (November 6, 2009)
Motion filed for fraternity lawsuit (October 27, 2009)
Bar sues UW Board of Regents (October 21, 2009)
One ring to rule them all... (October 19, 2009)

By Signe Brewster
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 1:46 a.m.

2 Vote 0 Votes

A union composed of University of Wisconsin System schools faculty and staff voted at an annual assembly Saturday to endorse a proposal that would reallocate a state recruitment and retention fund to student financial aid.

Gov. Jim Doyle’s last two biennial budgets included provisions for the fund and the latest 2009-11 budget would allocate $15 million to retention and recruitment.

According to President Mark Evenson, The Association of University of Wisconsin Professionals, a statewide local union associated with the American Federation of Teachers, has been considering a proposal to reallocate the funds for a long time and their interest was re-piqued recently when UW-La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow proposed the idea.

“Given the fact we’re in very tough financial times … this would be a good time to rethink the way the state spends its money on higher [education], instead of wasting it on this ill-conceived ‘star fund’ we believe to be contrary to state statutes,” Evenson said.

However, UW System spokesperson David Giroux said the fund is the only source of money the System receives to increase salaries for in-demand faculty, a method that is supposed to keep UW System colleges competitive nationally in hiring faculty.

“That’s the only recruitment and retention fund we have,” Giroux said. “It’s a relatively small amount of money that we use when we are trying to get someone to come to campus who might not otherwise come, or to keep them from leaving. If we don’t get our recruitment and retention funding, then we won’t have any resources to address [these issues].”

Giroux said the System is instructed by the state to use the funds specifically for recruitment and retention, and doing otherwise would be a violation of state law.

However, Evenson alleges the funds have been abused, saying they are only allocated to faculty who are well-connected politically.

“That’s where this money is going; it’s not going to the core curriculum. It’s going to special interests that already have more than their fair share. We’re saying, ‘Let’s just take that money and put it into financial aid for students; at least there it’s doing some good,’” Evenson said.

No UW faculty or staff sit on TAUWP, but the union United Faculty and Academic Staff is specific to the university.

UFAS President Frank Emspak said he takes issue with the way UW is funded by the state as a whole.

“What you’ve got here is a declining portion of state funding … and in that context, what you’ve got is a defunding of the state university by the state,” Emspak said. “And in the midst of all this is a huge decline, which is the real problem concerning retention and recruitment. This deals with individual faculty instead of the problem as a whole.”

Giroux emphasized Doyle’s newest budget includes provisions for retention and recruitment as well as increased financial aid.

“Financial aid is critically important to our university. It always has been, it always will be,” Giroux said. “I think it is a bit disingenuous to pit these two ideas against each other. They are not mutually exclusive.”

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | April 28, 2009 2:07 AM | Reply
IP hash: bff69093

Unfortunately, this is not a good idea. The retention of top faculty needs to be more of a priority than turning the money to financial aid. Private loans exist for a reason. We have continued to see an exodus of top professors from our university to other top schools nationwide. By retaining these top faculty not only low-income students profit, but the university as a whole profits, both from added scholarship and name-recognition but also in the overall quality of education for low-middle-& high income students.

Anonymous | April 29, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply
IP hash: 998715a2

I have to disagree with you on at least one of these points. Private loans are a terrible thing. The rates that are given to students is around 8-9% on that loan where as the financial aid subsidized and non subsidized loans are at two and five percent respectively. It is also much harder to get a private student loan due to the fact that most students do not have a credit history and their parents must co-sign on the loan, that is, if they have good enough credit themselves. I do not disagree that we need to retain top educators, however, the correlation between having name recognition and scholarships is not a very strong one. Very few students will be able to benefit from the scholarship as opposed to increased financial aid.